Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Conversely, how long does a player stay in game when he finds out that not only does long skill progression stand in the way of competently using ships, but also their performance AND and guy with a catalyst who should feel so inclined in removing him from it. Honestly this narrows the depth of available tools for those not in specific situations with specific knowledge.

I'm going to go with yes it is worse on the assumption that a variety of available tools and a consistent rule set for those tools for the most part is a positive thing.

So basically what you are saying is that if an option becomes unreasonable to use there are alternatives, which is true, but 1) it doesn't invalidate the fact that some options cannot reasonably be used that could before and 2) the alternatives offer nothing new in their place as they already exist and can be used if one so pleases.

This is where the being forced comes in. It restricts the ability to do certain tasks in certain ways. Yes, there are even more restrictive ways to handle something, but conversely it makes about as much sense to say revoking insurance on suicide ganks didn't mandate a change in tools to retain gank profitability because ganking wasn't banned altogether. just because a greater extreme exists in no way means the realities of this change become purely optional.

I think what you want is a dev rather than a pair of forum dwellers. We can do nothing for you here.

Apologies, could you rephrase?


I think I pointed this out in section [5.0] Drawbacks.


I would advocate that this inspires choice - the fact that there is no ideal solution. Think back to the mining barge buffs in 2012 as an example. Prior to those changes, there was a clear order of progression from Procurer -> Retriever -> Covetor -> Skiff -> Mackinaw -> Hulk. The only deciding factor was your current skills and your wallet. Opting to use a former over any of the latter options was simply suboptimal play. After the change, players are given three distinct choices depending on their needs: Tank, cargo or yield. No one ship was a direct upgrade over the others.

Just as with the changes I've proposed, players have a choice about how they want to tackle level 4 missions: Don't bother, stick to level 3; bring friends; solo them with a battleship while watching local & d-scan, possibly tune in on available intel channels too.

Indeed it does, but in doing so, you now have a ship that can be legally aggressed. In addition, the ship will be dealing with sentry gun fire. Any logi helping them tank the damage inherits their criminal status, also becoming attackable by all. This creates a strong time limitation as any white knight or ship flying escort for the frieghter can now aggress you, while you're at a disadvantage thanks to sentry fire. This of course, is compounded by the fact that any neutral is free to pile on to the aggressor(s).

A gank fleet waiting in station takes too long to react to a gank opportunity, there is a solid chance that that the point ship will be destroyed before support arrives. This too, is compunded by the fact that large fleets of catalysts can quickly be swatted by any PvP fitted ship, and even PvE fit ships can at least force the catalysts off grid. Simply put, using the old strategy is no longer the optimal solution.

Currently, freighter ganking fleets are only viable because a neutral ship can keep a freighter stalled indefinitely without flagging himself for combat. It is disproportionately difficult for defenders or white knights to deal with that ship. The result is that a single ship can point a freighter while his fleet mates form up at their leisure.


I don't feel that encouraging players to interact with other players - be it through hostilities or team work in a multiplayer game is a negative.

iirc repping a criminal or outlaw makes you a criminal and CONCORD DD your oneiros.

There is a simple yet collosal flaw in the OP. Those who live in hisec because ti is more safe do so because they do not (or acannot due to time commitments) want to operate in lo/null/WH space. Removing CONCORD would not change this and would simply result in many players being unable to take part in Eve.

So it's a no from me. With a vigorous shake of the head.

Ed: Not that head for those filthy minded inuendo types...

Because your intention is to make the hisec regions less safe than they are and therfore 'persuade' players to move to other areas that they clearly don't want to move to.

I would point out that CONCORD do not make hisec safe, simply act as a deterrent against random attacks.

I would also say as I usually do in these type of threads that players will only play in the regions that they are happy in. Mess with that and you mess with the player base. The only way to get players into other regions of space is to entice them in. This would still only be a small portion of those in hisec but I am of the view that hisec players have every right to be there since they pay the same subs as everyone else. I also view them as a valuable segment of the game so see no reason to make them less safe.

That would work well then :D

Only stupid masochist want to re-train the same skill over and over again.

As for the OP, I kinda wonder how many time it would take for people to stop buying battleship in trade hubs at all since you could camp the station or scout gate and kill any that jump on the other side if they somehow all had insta BM.

Does persuasion consist of "please play with other people"?


A job they perform admirably. However, my argument is that they do their job too well, and stifle game play opportunities instead of encouraging players to take part in or create them.


So, those players would elect to use cruisers to run L3s or ally up with friends to run L4s.


What would you propose? Moreover, what would you propose without a change to CONCORD and humouring me, with the changes I suggested?